John
Kilani, Chair of the CDM Executive
Board (EB), provided an overview of
the EB’s key outputs, including:
approved baseline methodologies;
accreditation of Designated
Operational Entities (DOE); work on
sink CDM projects; and the CDM
registry.

Responding to some participants’
concerns over slow progress with the
CDM process, Kilani emphasized the
critical importance of private
sector involvement in the CDM. He
indicated that the EB’s mandate is
to ensure the integrity of the CDM.
He underscored that the high quality
of DOEs and said Certified Emission
Reductions (CER) is in the interest
of the business sector. Georg
Borsting, EB’s Vice-Chairman,
stressed that the EB appreciates the
views and input of the private
sector.

Jean-Jacques Becker, EB, noted that
the EB has already taken action to
expedite the CDM process, such as
developing the additionality tool.
He said use of the approved
methodologies should speed up the
process, and

noted that new consolidated
methodologies will only be
considered in case several
approved methodologies cover
the same sector.

On the geographical
distribution of DOEs,
Richard Muyungi, EB, noted
that, while all the
accredited DOEs are from
developed countries, some
applications are from
developing countries. He
said the EB is concerned
about the equitable
geographical distribution of
CDM projects. Becker noted
that the EB does not have a
mandate to determine the
sectoral distribution of CDM
projects, but will consider
proposals submitted by any
eligible sectors.

Regarding approval of CDM
projects by Parties, Sushma
Gera, EB, referred to a
decision of the EB’s 16th
meeting, which indicates
that approval should be
unconditional and project
specific. Regarding CDM
projects implemented through
multilateral carbon funds,
she said not all Annex I
countries need to approve
every project. She also
indicated that any
Activities Implemented
Jointly (AIJ) projects can
be approved under the CDM if
they meet all the
conditions, including the
commencing date specified in
the Marrakech Accords.

On the work of the EB,
participants considered,
inter alia: the likely
increase in the EB’s
workload and adequacy of
resources; the need for
guidance from the Conference
of the Parties regarding
certain types of projects;
and the relationship between
the EB and the Article 6
Supervisory Committee. On
the CDM, participants
discussed unilateral CDM
projects and the number of
accounts in the CDM
registry. Regarding
methodologies, participants
addressed approval of sink
projects, consistency
between consolidated and
individual methodologies,
and the complexity of the
approved methodologies.
Participants also
considered: the role of the
Designated National
Authorities (DNA); capacity
building; differences
between biomass and other
renewable projects; and the
need for further work to
facilitate small-scale
projects.

Richard Klein, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Change Research, discussed ways
to make climate impact and adaptation
research useful to local decision
makers, and noted the need for studies
on the probability of climate change and
cost-benefit analyses of policies.

In a panel on
lessons learnt from
scientific
assessments, Osvaldo
Canziani,
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate
Change, said more
data is needed, and
highlighted a
reverse correlation
between the costs of
adaptation and the
reduction of GHG
emissions.

Linda Mearns,
National Center for
Atmospheric
Research, described
the utility of
high-resolution
regional models,
which allow for more
realistic depictions
of topography and
enable new types of
studies on
adaptation.

Jose Marengo, Centro
de Previsao de Tempo
e Estudos Climaticos
of Brazil, outlined
Brazil’s efforts in
assessing population
sensitivity to
climate change
impacts and
improving
development of
regional models.

Richard Klein,
Potsdam Institute
for Climate Impact
Research, discussed
ways to ensure that
research related to
climate impacts and
adaptation is
relevant to
local-level decision
making. He
recommended
integrating
quantitative and
qualitative studies,
and said local
decision makers need
estimates of the
probability of
climate change,
cost-benefit
analyses of
policies, and
studies on the
viability of
alternative
adaptation options.

Linda Mearns, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, discussed the
usefulness of higher-resolution regional
models that enable new types of studies
on adaptation.

In a panel
addressing a plan of
action for science
in support of
adaptation, Walter
Baethgen, Uruguay
International
Research Institute,
asserted that
adaptation is rarely
on the policy agenda
of developing
countries, and said
effective research
requires the
creation of
multidisciplinary
teams and
stakeholder
involvement.

Shem Wandiga, Kenya
National Academy of
Sciences, noted that
disclosure of
scientific facts has
been essential to
encourage
ratification of the
Kyoto Protocol, and
said implementation
strategies should be
based on promoting a
wider understanding
of environmental and
socioeconomic
issues.

Vincente Barros, University
of Buenos Aires, stressed
the distinction between
long-term and current
adaptation measures, saying
that, in many areas,
“autonomous” adaptation does
not draw on academic
research and can provide
lessons for responses to
climate change.

Rodel Lasco, World
Agroforestry Centre,
stressed that
climate-related science in
developing countries is very
limited, and called for
partnerships between the
scientific communities of
developing and developed
countries.

Neil Leary, SysTem for
Analysis, Research and
Training Secretariat, stated
that investments in science
addressing global
environmental change yield
high pay-offs, underscored
the importance of
participatory assessments
that produce usable
knowledge, and said
developing country
governments have the
responsibility to fund
research.

Capacity needs of climate change policy
development in the Balkans, Stability
Pact countries and Turkey

Presented by the Regional Environmental
Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

Maria Khovanskaia, REC, noted that
local-level feasibility studies should
investigate the potential for local
co-funding, the role of local
authorities, regional infrastructure and
regional development strategies.

Zsuzsanna Ivanyi, REC, presented the
results of a survey on the capacity
of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia
and Montenegro to meet their
obligations related to GHG
inventories as non-Annex I Parties.
She noted that these countries
experience common problems,
including: a lack of technical
equipment and expertise; inadequate
financial resources; a legislative
void; inadequate institutional
frameworks; and a failure to assign
responsibility for managing
inventories to a specific
institution.

Maria Khovanskaia, REC, outlined
lessons learnt from the development
of feasibility studies for Joint
Implementation (JI) projects. She
stressed that national-level
feasibility studies should consider
the existing legislative,
institutional and administrative
framework, as well as previous
experience with JI. For individual
installations, she said ownership,
technology choices, and possible
sources of emissions reductions
should be considered. Regarding
engagement of the private sector,
she stressed the need to identify
focal points within governments and
include JI obligations in the terms
of reference when privatizing
industrial sectors. She suggested
making use of confidentiality
agreements as a proof of commitment
from foreign investors.

Ivona Grozeva, Bulgaria’s
Ministry of the Environment
and Water, outlined her
country’s approval process
for JI projects,
highlighting the role of her
Ministry in assessing and
approving projects. She
provided information on a
number of projects
undertaken in cooperation
with the Netherlands and
Denmark, and a proposed
project with Germany. She
noted that these projects
address energy efficiency,
renewable energy, fuel
switching and nitrogen
oxide.

Zsuzsanna Ivanyi, REC,
considered Turkey’s progress
in the field of climate
change, outlining scenarios
for GHG emissions
reductions, including:
implementing advanced
technology for electricity
production; increasing the
use of natural gas and the
share of renewable energy;
and improving consumption
efficiency. Ivanyi
highlighted a lack of
finance, stakeholder
participation and research
as weaknesses, and listed
Turkey’s geopolitical
situation, leadership in
renewable energy and
accession to the EU as
opportunities.

Presented by the International Institute
for Environment and Development (IIED)

Andrew Simms, New Economics Foundation,
said a new development model is needed,
which is both climate proof and climate
friendly.

Andrew
Simms, New Economics Foundation,
introduced a new initiative by a
coalition of development and
environmental NGOs and their report
“Up in Smoke –The Impact of Global
Warming on Human Progress.” He said
this initiative engages development
organizations in activities related
to climate change and promotes the
public profile of the issue.

Saleemul Huq, IIED, called for
South-South transfers of adaptation
technologies, and said solutions
should be developed at the local
level by people who are already
experiencing vulnerability.

Sarah La Trobe, Tearfund, emphasized
that, while adaptation is not
difficult to implement, it requires
a shift in thinking. She said
measures for disaster relief and
climate change adaptation should be
integrated with development
programs.

Maria Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros,
Greenpeace International, stressed
the importance of partnerships
between development and
environmental organizations.

Antonio Hill, Oxfam, said poor
people are most exposed and
vulnerable to climate change at the
same time as being least responsible
for the problem. He outlined Oxfam’s
threefold strategy to address the
problem, which includes mitigation
measures, know-how development and
relief measures.

Catherine Pearce, Friends of the
Earth, described the impacts of
climate change already observable in
Argentina, and underscored the need
to reduce GHG emissions by 60-80% by
the middle of this century.

Jennifer Morgan, WWF International,
stressed the need to bring together
individuals affected by climate
change and those that have influence
over climate policy, and invited
more organizations to join the
coalition on climate change and
development.

Discussion: Participants enquired
about the way the coalition intends
to internationalize its work and how
it plans to engage the donor
community. Panelists said the
coalition will use the international
structures of their member
organizations, as well as local
partners, to ensure a global impact.

Faizal Parish, GEC, outlined the effects
of climate change scenarios on
permafrost peatlands, indicating that an
estimated 50 gigatons of organic carbon
may be released following melting,
drying out and fires resulting from
climate change.

Manuel
Guariguata, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
outlined CBD’s activities related to
climate change, noting opportunities
to develop synergies between
mitigation and adaptation and
conserving biodiversity. He said
these opportunities are rarely
realized due to lack of coordination
at national and international
levels.

Faizal Parish, GEC, said peatlands
play a key role in the global carbon
cycle by absorbing carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and storing 30%
of terrestrial carbon. He said the
impacts of climate change on
peatlands include melting of
permafrost peatlands, drying of
continental interiors, and increased
forest and peatland fires. He
outlined next steps for peatlands
management, including: assessing the
status of peatlands and their
importance for climate change
mitigation; developing national
strategies for sustainable use; and
establishing regional and global
management plans.

Andrey Sirin, Russian Academy of
Science, outlined the cover and
diversity of peatlands in his
country. He identified main threats
to peatlands, including peat
extraction, fires, drainage and
salination, and noted the need to
designate peatlands as a main
terrestrial carbon sink.

Daniel
Blanco, Wetlands International,
presented an inventory of the
Patagonian peatlands, indicating
that there are six main peatland
zones characterized by different
peatland types. He noted ecosystem
services to local communities,
including the provision of food and
water resources.

Faizal Parish, GEC, outlined changes
in the distribution and carbon
content of peatlands in Sumatra
between 1990 and 2002. Highlighting
the negative effects of drainage on
the peatland ecosystem, he noted
that communities had learned to
block channels dug in the peatlands
in order to reduce drainage, raise
the water table and reduce the risk
of fire.

Yamil Bonduki, UNDP, said the
effectiveness of national strategies is
often constrained by inadequate linkages
between environmental strategies and
budgetary decision making.

Habiba Gitay, Scientific and
Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of
the GEF, spoke on exploiting the
interlinkages between the focal
areas of the GEF, which include
climate change, biodiversity,
international waters, ozone
depletion, persistent organic
pollutants, and land degradation.
She proposed a design tool to
interlink the GEF’s focal areas,
noting that the tool aims to
maximize the benefits and minimize
the negative effects of specific GEF
projects on other focal areas.
Identifying disincentives for
projects dealing with interlinkages,
she proposed to: establish fora
within the GEF to develop
outcome-oriented indicators;
encourage the use of multiple
reviewers; facilitate a full
portfolio analysis of GEF projects;
and encourage research projects.

Yamil Bonduki, UNDP, spoke on
country experiences in implementing
National Capacity Self Assessments
(NCSA), outlining the future NCSA
Global Support Programme, which will
provide technical support to
countries and develop a new vision
for decentralized capacity building.

and new technologies. He said
demand-side management technologies have
been given the highest priority in the
electricity sector in Mauritius,
followed by micro-solar systems and
other renewable energy technologies.

Discussion: Participants enquired about
ways of comparing the effects of a
single project on different GEF focal
areas. Gitay explained that the design
tool proposed by STAP suggests
checklists to identify the impacts, and
indicated that guidelines for
comparisons will be elaborated in the
future. She stressed that there will
always be trade-offs between different
focal areas.

Olga Pilifosova, UNFCCC Secretariat,
presented the history, structure and
content of the UNFCCC compendium on
vulnerability and adaptation
methods, stressing that it comprises
90 methods and will continue to
evolve.

Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting,
discussed the selection of
appropriate methods for assessing
vulnerability and adaptation to
climate change. He reviewed country
studies conducted by the US and UNEP,
and said the compendium represents a
valuable, user-friendly gateway to
existing methods.

experience in sector-specific
methods, and gave examples of
assessments of climate change impacts on
forest ecosystems and watersheds.

Sonia Vidic, Croatia’s
Meteorological and Hydrological Service,
recounted Croatia’s experience with
top-down and bottom-up approaches to
adaptation-related assessments. She
emphasized that economic difficulties
pose obstacles to assessment, and
identified the need for stakeholder
involvement and a supportive government.

Neal Leary, Assessments of Impact and
Adaptation to Climate Change (AIACC),
outlined AIACC’s activities, including
capacity building and 24 regional
assessments. He stressed that the UNFCCC
compendium is only a starting point.

Bo Lim, UNDP, presented on UNDP’s
efforts to provide improved technical
resources, facilitate the efficient use
of resources, and generate richer
knowledge to support implementation. She
described recent achievements such as
the Adaptation Policy Framework, a set
of technical resources for formulating
and implementing adaptation.

John Harding, UN International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), recounted
ISDR’s experience in collecting
information on methods and tools for
risk and vulnerability assessments. He
noted challenges in distinguishing
actual risk from perceived risk.

Discussion: Various participants said
there is information overload without
prioritization of methods, and noted
that NGOs active in disaster management
have rarely been consulted by
scientists.

Presented by the Argentine Business
Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD)

Virginia Vilariño presented the results
of the study by the Argentine BCSD on
different GHG emissions scenarios for
Argentina.

Virginia Vilariño, BCSD Argentina,
presented a study on GHG emission
scenarios in Argentina by the BCSD.
She said the study considered
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane
and nitrous oxide until 2012 against
a 1997 base year. She noted that the
study comprised three emission
scenarios, excluding mitigation
measures: the Agro-Exporting Model,
the Industrial Model, and the
Power-Based Model. Vilariño said
emissions will increase between
16-22 % in all three scenarios, and
explained that the scenarios show
similar emission trends for the
different sectors. She noted that
Argentina’s contribution to global
emissions will still be marginal in
2012, but stressed that, in order
for Argentina’s development to be
sustainable, mitigation measures
will be necessary for all sectors
and should commence immediately.

Sergio Raballo, CAPSA, highlighted
the need to stabilize global GHG
emissions and fill the gap in energy
supply resulting from a transition
from a reliance on fossil fuels, and
underscored the role of hydrogen in
this transition. Raballo presented
plans for large-scale wind hydrogen

production in the Argentine
Patagonia, a project entailing the
construction of a 16000 megawatt wind
park over ten years. He highlighted the
suitability of Patagonia for the project
and the opportunity for Argentina to
start hydrogen production. He said
hydrogen projects require involving the
economic sector and NGOs.